THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
KIDUSHIN 77-80 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) THE DAUGHTER OF A YISRAEL MARRIED TO A "CHALALAH"
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the daughter of a Yisrael who married a
Chalalah (a woman who is prohibited from marrying a Kohen) is permitted to
marry a Kohen. The Gemara quotes Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon
(or Rebbi Yishmael) who says that the source for this is a Gezeirah Shavah
between the verse, "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav" (Vayikra 21:15), and the
verse, "Lo Yitama Ba'al b'Amav" (Vayikra 21:4).
The Gemara, at the end of the previous Perek, taught certain guidelines with
regard to establishing one's Yichus. The Mishnah there (66b) states the rule
that, "Wherever [a marriage is performed in which] Kidushin takes effect and
there is no transgression involved, the status of the offspring follows the
status of the father." Since the case of the Mishnah here -- a Jewish man
marrying a Chalalah -- involves no transgression, it should be obvious that
the child will have the status of the father (and will be a full-fledged
Yisrael, and not a Chalalah)! Why, then, is it necessary to have a special
source in the Torah to teach us this Halachah?
(a) The PNEI YEHOSHUA offers two explanations. First, he says that the verse
that teaches us that a child is a Chalal when born from a union involving an
Isur Kehunah is "v'Lo Yechalel Zar'o b'Amav." This verse teaches that the
child of a Kohen who married someone prohibited to him is a Chalal. Since
the Torah states, "Zar'o" -- "his offspring," with no modifying conditions,
it implies that *all* of his offspring -- even future generations that will
be born from this Chalal -- are invalidated from the Kehunah. Therefore, we
need a special source to teach that his grandchildren are not necessarily
invalidated from the Kehunah.
(b) The Pnei Yehoshua answers further and says that, indeed, the source of
the rule of the Mishnah earlier (66b) is our Gemara. We might have limited
the rule that "the status of the offspring follows the status of the father"
to a case where *both* parents are completely Kosher, such as where the
father is a Kohen and the mother a Yisraelis, or where the father is a
Yisrael and the mother is a Kohenes. Only in such cases would we give the
child the status of the father, based on the verse, "l'Mishpechosam l'Veis
Avosam" (Bamidbar 4:2; Rashi 66a, DH Kohenes). Only after our Gemara proves
that even when one side is Pasul, as long as there is no Isur involved in
the marriage the child's status follows that of the father.
2) MAKING A WOMAN A "CHALALAH"
QUESTION: It was taught before Rav Sheshes in the name of a Tana that "Kol
she'Hu b'Yikach, Harei Hu b'Lo Yikach..." -- the Isurim of the prohibited
marriages of a Kohen Gadol -- Almanah, Gerushah, Chalalah, or Zonah -- apply
only to a woman who would otherwise be permitted to him (if she were not an
Almanah, etc.). Thus, if a Kohen Gadol has relations with his sister who is
an Almanah, he does not receive Malkus for the Isur of marrying an Almanah.
3) TWO "ISURIM" TAKING EFFECT, ONE AFTER THE OTHER
The Gemara concludes that the reason these Isurim do not apply when the
Kohen would, anyway, be prohibited from marrying the woman, is because of
the principle, "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" -- one Isur cannot take effect on a
Later (at the end of the Daf), Rav Ashi states that a Kohen who has
prohibited relations with his unmarried sister makes her a Zonah, but he
does not make her a Chalalah (and thus if another Kohen marries her, he
receives only one set of Malkus -- for the Isur of marrying a Zonah). But if
the Kohen has prohibited relations with his sister a second time, then he
makes her a Chalalah.
The principle that the Gemara established is that when a woman is prohibited
to a Kohen even when she is a Besulah, then he does not transgress the
special Isurei Kehunah when he marries her when she is not a Besulah. Why,
then, does a Kohen who has relations with his sister who is a Zonah give her
the status of a Chalalah? The Gemara earlier taught that a woman becomes a
Chalalah only through transgressing a prohibition of Isurei Kehunah, but not
through any other act of forbidden relations. The prohibition of having
relations with a Zonah does not apply to this Kohen, since he would be
prohibited to his sister even if she were not a Zonah; the only Isur that he
is transgressing is that of having relations with his sister, and he is not
transgressing any Isur Kehunah. Therefore, she should not become a Chalalah!
ANSWER: RASHI (DH Prat l'Kohen Gadol) writes that the Kohen "does not
receive Malkus for [transgressing] an Isur Kehunah, but only for
[transgressing] the Isur of having relations with one's sister." We can
infer from Rashi's words that the principle of "Kol she'Hu b'Yikach..." was
said only with regard to Malkus, but not with regard to whether or not there
is an Isur altogether. There certainly is an Isur; it is just not considered
to be within the normal category of a Lav to make the Kohen liable for
Malkus if he transgresses it.
The status of "Chalalah" is dependent on there being an Isur, and not on the
Kohen's liability for Malkus.
QUESTION: The Gemara earlier states that "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" -- an Isur
cannot take effect on a pre-existing Isur -- except where the second Isur is
a more severe Isur than the first ("Isur Mosif"). According to this rule,
how does a Kohen's sister who is a Zonah become a Chalalah through relations
with the Kohen? The Gemara states clearly that only when the woman was first
a Chalalah, can she then acquire the additional Isur of Zonah. If, however,
she was first a Zonah, the Isur of Chalalah cannot take effect! How, then,
can the Gemara say that the Kohen's sister who is a Zonah now becomes a
Chalalah when the Kohen has relations with her a second time?
ANSWER: The SHA'AR HA'MELECH (17:8) quotes the MAHARIT who introduces a new
way of understanding the Halachah of "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur," based on our
question above. The generally accepted meaning of the principle of "Ein Isur
Chal Al Isur" is that the second Isur cannot take effect at all, since there
already exists an Isur. The Maharit proposes that, actually, *both* Isurim
take effect. The principle of "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" tells us only that one
cannot receive *punishment* for a second Isur when there is a pre-existing
Isur. In contrast, when two Isurim take effect simultaneously, then one
*would* receive two punishments for transgressing them. "Ein Isur Chal Al
Isur" teaches that when one Isur takes effect after another one has already
taken effect, one can only receive punishment for one transgressing one of
them. Both Isurim, however, are in force. Hence, if witnesses would give
Hasra'ah and warn the person not to transgress the *second* Isur, then
Malkus could be given for that Isur.
This explains why the woman can be considered a Chalalah. The Isur of
Chalalah takes effect, even though one cannot receive Malkus for that Isur,
unless the witnesses specifically give Hasra'ah for that Isur. (See RASHASH
for a different approach; see also Insights to Sotah 27b.)